Art wrote:
>We require "fuzzy logic", and we incorporate it into our machines
>because they can "think" better (as we do) that way. Since we program
>them, we tend to use our type of logic, which in turn probably slows
>them down, but by introducing the "fuzzy" part, we make them more able
>to function as we do, which makes them, like us, skip over the less
>important details.
In an otherwise brilliant treatise (well, it's Filmscanners, not the Nobel
Prize competition, but then... ;-) ), Art mistakes, IMHO. We *don't*
(ordinarily) program computers to think like we do, we use Newtonian
mathmatics (genius again--sorry). And Fermat. Pascal, Fourier, and so forth.
Did they think like you do? They certainly didn't think like *I* do. Better,
admittedly, at least about abstract mathatical principles, but did they have
to worry about paying their Master Charge bill on time? No, their wives
probably did it for them. I'll bet they couldn't tell an RGB from a CMYK!
Besides the advanced-and-not-fuzzy math in our programs, there is also a
modicum of Bill Gates in our computers (not enough to change the math, just
enough to piss us off). Could I program a computer to do what Art asks?
Sure--give me enough monkeys and computers, and we'll probably have it done
in a million years or so, along with the complete works of Shakespeare and
Jack Keruak. :-)
Every once in awhile (or twice--who's counting?) you'll see me rant about
"The Secrets Of The Guild." All this mumbo-jumbo programming that it only
takes a math-oriented brain to do (and I didn't mean you, Ed, I meant those
geeks who wrote the first version of MS-DOS--yech!).
IMHO, the half-way intelligent computer user, given the training and the
resource codes, could write or revise better programs--for their uses, at
least--than any team at Microsoft (just to name a "common enemy"). It might
take them longer than it would to earn the bucks to buy Uncle Bill's latest
offering (and I'm pretty sure it would take a *lot* longer), but you don't
know what the satisfaction of hearing that "purring machine" is, until
you've done it. I allus say. :-)
Best regards--LRA
>From: Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>
>Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>Subject: Re: Unsharp mask was Re: filmscanners: Getting started question
>Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:09:23 -0700
>
>I find you comments about analogue "feel" very interesting , as I just
>wrote a reply in the "other" scan list that I think I will post here as
>a result. I think this is called convergence. ;-)
>
>Actually, I just realized, that Dave wrote the comments I am replying
>to in both lists...
>
>Humans do not like rigidly "gridded" anything. There is a random
>element in nature, and in us, and we like it. Noise is random,
>photo grain is random. Digital sampling is rigid, pixel positions are
>rigid. We are analogue. Neither is accurate, but we are more
>comfortable with analogue because we prefer randomness, and our eyes and
>ears are analogue and create all sorts of randomness.
>
>We require "fuzzy logic", and we incorporate it into our machines
>because they can "think" better (as we do) that way. Since we program
>them, we tend to use our type of logic, which in turn probably slows
>them down, but by introducing the "fuzzy" part, we make them more able
>to function as we do, which makes them, like us, skip over the less
>important details.
>
>Humans tend to become more proficient at tasks by learning or training
>ourselves to ignore most of the input we receive, to "narrow focus" on
>only that which is relevant to complete a task. Left to their own,
>computers analyze every piece of information they receive without being
>able to selectively "block out" the unimportant stuff.
>
>Go to a cocktail party, and without moving your position, follow
>conversations in different parts of the room. Our brain allows us to
>amplify certain vocal tones, frequencies and spatial placements, while
>diminishing others. Now, try to design a machine which can do the same
>without further human intervention, ---call me 50 years from now when
>you have it worked out. ;-) Ask anyone who wears hearing aids how
>annoying it is to have all the sounds in the room amplified, and having
>lost control over this selective hearing.
>
>One of the reasons inkjet printers seem to translate images so well (to
>our liking) is because they use random dithering techniques. We like
>sub-threshold noise, and now that I've made enough of my own (noise),
>I'll end this posting ;-)
>
>Art
>
>Dave King wrote:
>
> > Or one can use the simple approach of sharpening "grain" (or whatever
> > it is:) with no regard to individual image detail. I prefer to look
> > at the grain in an area of no detail in fact, at 100% at the final
> > print size. I've been using 75% at .8 radius, 0 threshold for most
> > things with the Agfa T-2500, and sharpening the original scan once and
> > then again if the image has to be interpolated up considerably for
> > large print sizes. This seems to me to be closest to an "analogue
> > feel" in the final print, but it does throw away one of the advantages
> > of digital that many people love.
> >
> > I've found in comparisons of Genuine Fracticals to Photoshop bi-cubic
> > (in two stages when much upsampling is needed) that Genuine Fracticals
> > introduces edge sharpening effects that are not "analogue like", and I
> > prefer bi-cubic. Also, in areas of complex detail (grass for
> > example), GF can get confused and make a bit of a mess of things.
> > Even so, I've found the differences between GF and bi-cubic to be
> > pretty subtle in the final print.
> >
> > Dave
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
